posted at 4:45 pm on January 28, 2011 by Allahpundit

He did a darned good job of it too. He spoke for upwards of an hour, and the only useful piece of information to come out of the presser was that he wasn’t sure if The One has personally spoken to any world leaders about Egypt — including Mubarak, the strongest sign yet that the regime’s in very, very deep trouble. Before you go beating up on Gibbsy, though, let me call to the stand a witness for the defense. Over to you, John Bolton:

“In terms of how the administration has handled it, I think the reaction has been confused,” Bolton said. “Although in fairness, I will say nobody saw this coming. So I think that it may not be entirely justifiable, but it’s understandable that the initial reaction would be confused.”

Responding to a question after a speech at the 2011 Congressional Defense & Foreign Policy Forum on Friday, Bolton said a more active response from the administration on Egypt might have done more harm than good.

“I think there’s too much risk of mushy statements that just make things worse,” Bolton said.

So confounded is the administration by all this that you’ve got some Democratic foreign policy specialists saying Mubarak shouldn’t go while other Democratic foreign policy experts are calling for democratic presidential elections. Look at it from Obama’s perspective: If he sides with Mubarak and the regime falls, the anti-American backlash will be vicious. If he sides with the protesters and the regime falls, he’ll be blamed for having helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Better to stick to neutral, well-meaning pap about “restraint” and hope for the best, no? Which of course also explains why U.S. foreign policy towards Egypt has remained basically constant for 30 years through administrations as different as Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Given the country’s Islamist grassroots, what was the alternative? Any president who came out whole-hog for democracy would have risked destabilizing the regime and empowering fundamentalists, which would in turn have encouraged fanatics across the region and potentially reoriented Sunni governments away from the Iranian threat and back towards Israel. As I recall, that was a chief “realist” criticism of Bush’s vision for the Middle East, later illustrated by Hamas’s victory in Gaza — that a democratic process doesn’t necessarily lead to a more liberal outcome. After 9/11 and the Iranian revolution in ’79, how could any American president gamble on backing reforms that might produce a net outcome that’s more Islamist? It’s political suicide.

Supporting Iran’s uprising two years ago was a missed opportunity for Obama because that net outcome realistically could have gone only one way. Iran has already been through the two standard models of Middle Eastern governance — pro-western secular fascism under the Shah and anti-western Islamic fundamentalism under the mullahs — so the likely outcome when the current regime falls is something new and democratic along the lines of what Iraq’s struggling to maintain. Egypt’s been stuck on the first model for ages, though. Any wonder that we’re worried about them moving straight to the second? Click the image to watch.

Update: A conveniently timed Wikileaks release. So conveniently timed, in fact, that I wonder how the feds helped push this out as a way of doing a little belated P.R. among Egyptians.

In a secret diplomatic dispatch, sent on December 30 2008, Margaret Scobey, the US Ambassador to Cairo, recorded that opposition groups had allegedly drawn up secret plans for “regime change” to take place before elections, scheduled for September this year…

It said the activist claimed “several opposition forces” had “agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to a parliamentary democracy, involving a weakened presidency and an empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled 2011 presidential elections”. The embassy’s source said the plan was “so sensitive it cannot be written down”.

Ambassador Scobey questioned whether such an “unrealistic” plot could work, or ever even existed. However, the documents showed that the activist had been approached by US diplomats and received extensive support for his pro-democracy campaign from officials in Washington.

Update: Mubarak’s speaking on Egyptian television now. Location and whether it’s live or recorded is anyone’s guess. Here’s a screencap. Stand by for vid later.

Update: So that explains the report of a “transitional government” earlier: Mubarak ended his speech by saying that he’s asked the government to resign and that a new one will be formed tomorrow — with him in charge, natch. I’m not sure what a cosmetic concession like that is supposed to achieve. Presumably he’ll ask Egyptian liberals and Islamists to join it to appease the protesters, but why would they accept and give him political cover? Better to keep up the heat and push him out.

Actually, maybe liberals will consider this an opportunity. If, as many assume, they’re weak vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood, then pushing Mubarak out will only seal their own fate when the MB takes over. Maybe they’ll decide that joining the government and pushing liberal reforms from within is their best way to build a broad popular constituency.

Update:Tom Joscelyn has an essential piece on the Muslim Brotherhood in response to the whitewash from Bruce Riedel that I linked in the other thread. If the MB takes power and we’re forced to deal with them, you’ll hear loads of spin of the Riedel variety about how they’re really not all that bad when compared to, say, Al Qaeda. That’s true only insofar as the MB is a bit more bottom-line about its goals than AQ is. If pretending to be “pro-democracy” helps advance their agenda more than blowing up buildings does, then pro-democracy it is:

First, we must understand that the Brotherhood is not confined to Egypt, but actually operates around the globe, with full-fledged branches throughout the Middle East and influence organizations in the West. Everywhere the Brotherhood has implanted its radical Islamist seed the organization has adapted to its environment. So, for example, in Egypt, where the Brotherhood was ruthlessly oppressed by Mubarak’s regime, it began to advocate open participation in Egypt’s elections. This was a necessity, as violent attempts to overthrow Mubarak were systematically crushed. Even so, we cannot pretend, as Riedel does, that the Brotherhood has completely eschewed violence…

The Muslim Brotherhood’s most influential theologian, Sheikh Yousef al Qaradawi, has repeatedly justified suicide bombings, called on Muslims to support the insurgency against American forces in Iraq, and justified the killing of civilians. “The martyrdom operations carried out by the Palestinian factions to resist the Zionist occupation are not in any way included in the framework of prohibited terrorism, even if the victims include some civilians,” Qaradawi said in 2003, according to MEMRI. “Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake,” Qaradawi added…

Riedel is correct in saying that the Muslim Brotherhood has drawn the ire of al Qaeda’s leaders for being “too soft.” But this glosses over the many ideological similarities between the two organizations. They both want to conquer lands in the name of Islam and establish Sharia law everywhere they can. They simply disagree about how to best accomplish that goal. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, who were recruited by the Brotherhood as young men, did not leave the organization because they disagreed with its long-term goals. They were simply unwilling to compromise at a tactical level.

Much more at the link above.

Update: A vivid reminder from ABC about why it’s futile for the White House to try to line up on the protesters’ side now: The tear gas cans being used by Egyptian police are actually stamped … “Made in U.S.A.”

Update: An expert from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy tells the Daily Caller that the Egyptian military won’t let the Muslim Brotherhood come to power. I hope that’s true; if it is, then Egypt might operate the way Turkey used to, with a secular military providing a tacit check on Islamist political influence. (Not so true anymore under Erdogan, is it?) Everything depends on how Islamist the Egyptian military itself is. How lucky do you feel?

Update: Here’s the clip of Mubarak giving viewers the full Orwell, pronouncing himself a lover of democracy, etc.

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt appeared on television late Friday night and ordered his government to resign, but backed his security forces’ attempts to contain the surging unrest around the country that has shaken his 28-year authoritarian rule.

He did not offer to step down himself and spent much of the short speech explaining the need for stability, saying that while he was “on the side of freedom,” his job was to protect the nation from chaos.

Several hours earlier, he had ordered the military into the streets to reinforce police struggling to contain riots by tens of thousands of Egyptians.

The president also imposed an overnight curfew nationwide, but demonstrators defied the order, remaining in the streets of the capital, setting fire to police cars and burning the ruling party headquarters to the ground. As smoke from the fires blanketed one of the city’s main streets along the Nile, crowds rushed the Interior Ministry and state television headquarters, but the military moved into the buildings to establish control. Protesters also tried to attack the American Embassy.

100% BS!!! This is a transparent attempt by “The Buffoon” (as he is known by the International community) to make it appear that he actually knows what is happening, and that he is somehow allied with whatever side wins.

Well, shucks. That was exciting. Now what do we talk about for the rest of the evening while we wait for sunrise in the middle east to see if the mobs are back in the street, and to see if Murbarak is still King of Egypt.

Saudis are also Sunni. They cool with the MB? IIRC, bin Laden had a grudge against the Saudis because they let troops from the Great Satan on their soil. bin Laden’s group originated from the MB, didn’t they?

For those of you who might think this revolution is somehow pro democracy just compare the pictures you are seeing to Iran’s uprising. How many buildings and cars were burnt in Iran? In Iran women were very prevalent. Where are the women in this revolution?

My friend, if you recall, the Iranians were rioting AGAINST the MB’s taking over. The Egyptians are rioting because they want the MB to take over! Correct me if I’m wrong….please

sicoit on January 28, 2011 at 6:23 PM

I don’t know about the Iranian situation in relation to the MB in the past (or are you taking about 09?). But I do know that they support the MB now.

As for the situation now, it’s very sectarian. There are multiple groups, different parties instigating the protests. The MB is by far the most powerful of these groups, so I don’t think you or anyone else is wrong to say that they would take control of the country if Mubarak if kicked out.

But, I do think it’s erroneous to say that all protesters support the MB. There are secular dissidents.

Saudis are also Sunni. They cool with the MB? IIRC, bin Laden had a grudge against the Saudis because they let troops from the Great Satan on their soil. bin Laden’s group originated from the MB, didn’t they?

a capella on January 28, 2011 at 6:33 PM

al-Zawahiri (AQ’s # 2) came from the MB. To my knowledge, the Saudi’s are not on friendly terms with the MB.

I don’t know about the Iranian situation in relation to the MB in the past (or are you taking about 09?). But I do know that they support the MB now.
As for the situation now, it’s very sectarian. There are multiple groups, different parties instigating the protests. The MB is by far the most powerful of these groups, so I don’t think you or anyone else is wrong to say that they would take control of the country if Mubarak if kicked out.

But, I do think it’s erroneous to say that all protesters support the MB. There are secular dissidents.

Cr4sh Dummy on January 28, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Yes….’09 and no. They (the Iranians)do not support the MB now, but NOW since the MB has taken total control, they have no choice…..again….correct me if I’m wrong. Please. Also, all protesters do support the MB, hence the reason for their riots. You say they are secular dissidents, but watch who wins…

For those of you who might think this revolution is somehow pro democracy just compare the pictures you are seeing to Iran’s uprising. How many buildings and cars were burnt in Iran? In Iran women were very prevalent. Where are the women in this revolution?

Rocks on January 28, 2011 at 6:34 PM

There have already been reports that protesters tried to attack the U.S. Embassy (see my above post). You are spot on here. This “revolution” is likely going to end up with another Hezbolla-like government.

For those of you who might think this revolution is somehow pro democracy just compare the pictures you are seeing to Iran’s uprising. How many buildings and cars were burnt in Iran? In Iran women were very prevalent. Where are the women in this revolution?

Yes….’09 and no. They (the Iranians)do not support the MB now, but NOW since the MB has taken total control, they have no choice…..again….correct me if I’m wrong. Please. Also, all protesters do support the MB, hence the reason for their riots. You say they are secular dissidents, but watch who wins…

sicoit on January 28, 2011 at 6:42 PM

You’re spot on with Iran. The MB definitely will win unfortunately. Iran may not give full support to the MB; however, I think they would welcome a MB controlled government. They worked with AQ before, so I think Iran can transcend the Sunni/Shite divide. Especially if it’s in their interests.

With regards to the protests, I think a substantial portion are with or would align with the MB. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that all protesters have the same motives as the MB. But I’m with you, if these protests are successful, the MB will be the new government in place. They’re the only one organized and willing to do whatever it takes (unfortunately).

As for the 09 Green Revolution, that was a revolt against the Theocracy in place and the Revolutionary Guard. I don’t think the MB is active there.

Ambassador Scobey questioned whether such an “unrealistic” plot could work, or ever even existed. However, the documents showed that the activist had been approached by US diplomats and received extensive support for his pro-democracy campaign from officials in Washington.

If the big 0 has been working behind the scenes with this tool it wouldn’t surprise me. This is the same as supporting the Muslim Brotherhood for all intents and purposes. One flavor of Islamist extremist is just as bad as another. Same old same old.

“Lemme get this straight: Obama did nothing to support the Iranian Democracy movement, but he has been working behind the scenes to depose Mubarak, Israel’s ally?

Buy Danish on January 28, 2011 at 9:00 PM”

Technically (and nobody is mentioning this point) so was Bush. The cable that is specifically mentioned on HotAir is from December 2008-the 2nd to last month of the Bush administration.

The cables go on to show that the U.S. government was in constant contact with this particular activist all throughout 2009 as well. So, it appears that the original U.S. support for a Mubarak overthrow originated under Bush, and continued under Obama.

The actions, from my viewpoint (in light of what the alternative is) are deplorable!

The Obama administration has known this would be happening since 2008. Here are a few links for your reading pleasure that talks to an individual who attended the Alliance Youth Movements Summit in 2008 whereby the Obama Campaigns New Media Team was involved. In 2009 SOS Clinton was the keynote speaker. It only took me 5 minutes to connect the dots.

Typical Obama response:” We must not jump to any conclusions that might unjustly blame any Arab or Muslin for this crisis that I inherited from the evil George W. Bush. We must EN-SHORE that the right wing nuts remain civil in their comments.Speech by Sara Palin, Glen Beck,Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin,Sean Hannity, The Tea Party,Fox News, and all Republicans mav incite riots and mayhem They should be quiet while I speak of myself and send aid in the form of windmills, solar shingles, and lots of leftover caulking. Furthermore I am sending my unemployed Gibbs to speak to the masses. He lies like a rug and can convince the Egyptians that there is no problem.I will carefully monitor this situation from the golf course and will speak more if needed. If it becomes more serious I will send them a few electric cars made by Government Motors in China. That should do the trick.I will hammer this message home from the campaign trail as I circle the world on Air Force One With my posse.I will try to use this to get re-elected.”